“It’s funny how an almighty god’s supposed commandments to all humanity, is bottle-necked by the need for interpretation and re-interpretation by college-trained academics, for them to be effective at all.”
Maybe on second thoughts you need a course in the English language as well with mixed metaphors as is the staple of many with links to sub-continental training. The sheer absurdity of your quote is evident in its intent that no interpretation should really be necessary. Everything should be plain and simple notwithstanding references in the original text that even the disciples of the Christ Himself did not at times understand Him.
You need to stay away from attempting to swim in deep intellectual waters. This is not an area for you as is becoming increasingly evident with each post you make. Certain passages from the New Testament alone occupy an entire semester’s discussion at the Harvard Divinity School.
We just saw how idiotic your quote from Samuel was. I guess this quote needed no context or interpretation!
Try enrolling in a course from this scholar and perhaps you may learn something.
http://www.luc.edu/theology/facultystaff/cv/cv_tobin.pdf
The only thing funny here is the pains you take to distract from the point made, preferring to attach motives to the one making the point, in a vain attempt at hoping to evade discussion. It is a predictable pattern with you, most likely to buy time, or avoid the debate altogether, by supplying sub-standard or irrelevant literature from the likes of, say, Kancha Ilaiah, or the author of that other “brilliant” piece you posted on this very thread, whom you found it fit to refer as an “eminent” writer. The intent is plainly evident, and yet you persist. Repeatedly. I am not the only one calling you out on this. A quick perusal of your posting history and replies to you from others, on other threads, reveals the same, as well.
One simple sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and the likes of Harvard can discuss it not just for a semester, but for aeons. Semitic languages are notorious for suffering from this inadequacy, and as expected, much exploited by theological charlatans from all religions relying on tracts recorded in this family of languages - Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, what have you.
Now, back to the original point. A claimed god-entity relying on obfuscation and multiply-interpretable sentences, while making commandments meant to be followed, not just by the handfuls of non-existent PhDs (or “T”hDs with degrees in largely useless areas, best described as hobby-pursuits), but by the common man (or the common slave, at the time of Moses), mostly illiterate and uneducated, beggars common sense.
As for the 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 reference, your implication that a plain commandment that ordered men to kill the infants, can be interpreted as an act of benevolence, is what is idiotic. Going by your own faulty “logic”, one could as well conclude that the day is brightest at night. Time is immaterial here. Your claim that a verse concocted 400 years after the act, could not accurately depict what actually happened at the time, only supports the argument attacking the shaky and flawed construct of this entire man-made enterprise.